Vengeance, Complicity and Criminal Law in Othello Richard H
University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound
Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers
2015 Vengeance, Complicity and Criminal Law in Othello Richard H. McAdams
Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons
Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere.
Recommended Citation Richard H. McAdams, "Vengeance, Complicity and Criminal Law in Othello" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 504, 2015).
This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 504
VENGEANCE, COMPLICITY AND CRIMINAL LAW IN OTHELLO
Richard H. McAdams
THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
February 2015
This paper can be downloaded without charge at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1893096 Shal A CONVERSATION AMONG DISCIPLINES AND PROFESSIONS Edited by BRADIN CORMACK, MARTHA C. NUSSBAUM, and RICHARD STRIER THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS Chicago and London Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1893096 RICHARD H. MCADAMS VENGEANCE, COMPLICITY, AND CRIMINAL LAW IN OTHELLO Criminal law offers a revealing frame for examining Othello, while the play offers in return some provocative thought experiments for examin ing law. The play encourages attention to law because, among other reasons, it favorably contrasts the deliberative elements oflegal process with the more arbitrary process of private vengeance. In act 5, Othello refuses to accord Des demona the very procedures that vindicated him ofa false charge in act r. Thus, · while some emphasize Shakespeare's criticism of law and lawyers, I contend in section 1 of this essay that Othello shows the virtue of legal processes by the tragedy its absence produces. For the lawyer, the play also poses a legal question: is Iago criminally liable for the murder of Desdemona? In section 2, I examine the rules of criminal complicity in place at the time Shakespeare wrote the play. Othello is a brilliant thought experiment for testing the limits ofElizabethan complicity law, espe cially for dealing with clever villains like Iago. In section 3, I use the criminal complicity rules set out in section 2 to explain two otherwise puzzling choices Iago makes: (1) his effort to dissuade Othello from using poison to kill Desde mona and (2) his lack of effort to be present at the killing. Of course, the law ofEngland would not have literally applied to the events in Othello, given that they occurred outside England among non-English subjects. But the audience for whom Shakespeare wrote would have interpreted the characters' actions in the light of their English understanding oflegal categories, which might have influenced how Shakespeare structured the action. At the least, a legal analysis shows us how legally trained members of the original audiences might have interpreted the play. Section 1 justifies the legal frame that I explore in sections 2 and 3. There is some tension in my first claiming that the play reveals the virtues of legal process and my later demonstrating that Iago stood to benefit, by accident or design, from certain limits or defects in the period rules of criminal law. Yet there is nothing unusual in finding such ambivalence in Shakespeare, whose ultimate views on important matters such as law are often hard to pin down. 1 The common point is that law has more to say about Othello (and vice versa) than has been previously understood. 121 1. Othello's Legal Frame: Public Process versus Private Revenge Various commentators assert that Shakespeare, like other educated nonlawyers of his day, knew a lot about law. 2 Besides having his own share of litigation, there is evidence that Shakespeare once lived near the Inns of Court, where he had friends and relatives and where he performed for collections of lawyers. 3 There was popular interest in law and high attendance at actual le gal proceedings, so the plays of the era frequently included trials and made reference to legal concepts.4 In addition, "lawyers made up a large part of the Bard's audiences wherever his plays were actually performed."5 Shakespeare thus used his legal "knowledge in his plays to create dramatic situations in areas of then current controversy."0 When Shakespeare scholars discuss the law in his plays, however, they usu ally neglect Othello. This omission is unjustified. Even a casual reading reveals that legal themes and terms pervade the text, and not just because we observe various crimes and accusation of crimes (discussed below). For example: Iago complains that Othello made Cassio his lieutenant. Three men went to Othello "[i]n personal suit to make me his lieutenant" (r.r.8),7 but Othello "Nonsuit[ed] my mediators" (r.r.15). A nonsuit is a legal judgment against a plaintiff for failing to establish a prima facie case. Roderigo says that if he is lying about Desdemona's having married Othello, Brabantio can "Let loose on me the justice of the state" (r.r.137). Desdemona promises to present Cassio's "suit" to Othello: "For thy solicitor shall rather die /Than give thy cause away" (3+27-28). English lawyers are either barristers or "solicitors." Brabantio and Othello speak oflegal "causes," as discussed below. Iago tells Othello he should not be obligated to reveal all his thoughts, arguing: Who has a breast so pure But some uncleanly apprehensions Keep leets and law-days and in session sit With meditations lawful? (3+141-44) Leets were "special courts, held by some lords of the manor once or twice a year."" Speaking to Emilia, Desdemona decides there is an innocent explanation for Othello's strange mood: Arraigning his unkindness with my soul, But now I find I had suborned the witness 122 RICHARD H. MCADAMS And he's indicted falsely. (3+153-55) When Iago recommends that Othello strangle Desdemona in "the bed she hath contaminated," Othello replies that the "justice ofit pleases" (4.r.205-6). When Othello is about to kill Desdemona, he comments that her "balmy breath ... dost almost persuade I Justice to break her sword" (5.2.16-17). Omitted from this list are the crucial events in act l, scene 3, where Othello answers Brabantio's charge that he has unlawfully taken Desdemona. The le gal framing here deserves sustained attention. Act l has the distinction that its events were created entirely by Shakespeare; they have no parallel in the acknowledged source for the play, Giovanni Cinthio's Un Capitano Moro, from Gli Hecatommithi (1565). 9 Samuel Johnson suggested that act l could be deleted without substantial loss,10 and, indeed, Verdi's opera Otelia omits it. Scholars have identified various purposes served by the act. 11 I wish to add an overlooked point: the opening act creates a legal baseline for evaluating subsequent events. In act 5, Othello seeks vengeance for what he believes to be Desdemona's adul tery. In killing Desdemona and seeking the death of Cassio, he denies to them some of the very elements ofa legal process from which he benefits in act land which would have almost certainly unmasked Iago's fragile deception. Thus, the play shows the need for law by depicting the tragic horror that can result from its absence. This reading requires a close comparison of act l, scene 3, and act 5, scene 2. THE ELEMENTS OF LEGAL PROCESS IN ACT l, SCENE 3 In act l, Brabantio believes that Othello has wronged him by taking his daughter Desdemona from his possession by force or fraud, a serious crime.12 As will be true when Othello believes in act 5 that Desdemona has wronged him, the source of the error is Iago. Directly and with Roderigo's assistance, Iago truthfully reports to Brabantio that his daughter is secretly away with Othello, but Iago adds sexual imagery to inflame Brabantio's anger (r.r). Later, Iago reports to Othello that Brabantio spoke in "provoking terms I Against your honour" (r.2.7-8), which made Iago contemplate a violent response (r.2.5). Iago also warns against relying on law, suggesting that Brabantio has so much political power that he will turn the governing council against Othello and "put upon" him "what restraint or grievance/The law" will allow (r.2.15- 17). Iago thus seeks to provoke a violent confrontation when the two men meet. The meeting occurs later in act r, scene 2. Brabantio, Roderigo, and some Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 123 officers meet Othello, Cassio, and Iago on the street, and each side draws swords. Iago tells Othello that Brabantio "comes to bad intent" (1. 56). Braban tio calls Othello a "thief" (11. 57, 62) and accuses him of" [a] bus [ing] [Desde mona's] delicate youth with drugs or minerals I That weakens motion" (ll. 73- 75). At this moment, on the cusp of violence, Brabantio could seek to avenge himself through private action or Othello might act preemptively as Iago has suggested. Instead, Othello discourages swordplay and Brabantio invokes a legal pro cess. Brabantio charges that Othello has acted "out ofwarrant" and commands his men to make an arrest: "Lay hold upon him; ifhe do resist/ Subdue him at his peril!" (11. 79-81). When Othello asks, "Where will you that I go I To answer this your charge?" Brabantio replies, To prison, till fit time Oflaw, and course of direct session Call thee to answer. (11. 83-86) As it turns out, the "fit time" for Othello to answer the charge is right away, because the Duke is in council that night attending to matters of war, and his messengers bring word that he has sent for Othello. Brabantio is satisfied to submit his "cause" (l. 95) to the Duke and the council. In act r, scene 3, the Duke hears Brabantio's accusation, which now also includes the serious crime of witchcraft (r.3.65). Although the Duke is not a judge, and he treats the matter informally, he takes the action to be determined by law, telling Brabantio that if they determine that an individual has used witchcraft against Desdemona, Brabantio shall read "the bitter letter" from "the bloody book oflaw" (11. 68-69)-that is, be permitted to select the harsh est punishment the law allows. We observe in the scene several basic elements of legal process. The most important contrast to private revenge is that, instead of the accuser I purported victim deciding the case, the parties submit the issues to a (relatively) neutral and impartial decision maker. The Duke proclaims his impartiality, saying that should the charges prove true, the harsh punishment should be applied "though our proper son/ Stood in your action" (11. 70-71), that is, even if his own son were the party accused. Second, the accuser Brabantio states a specific claim against Othello, pro viding the accused with notice of his alleged crime-that he has obtained Des demona's consent to marry only by the use of witchcraft or drugs (11. 60-65; 95-ro7). Third, the Duke makes clear that the truth of the charges will be de cided by evidence. Upon hearing Brabantio's second accusatory speech, the 124 RICHARD H. MCADAMS Duke replies: "To vouch this is no proof, /Without more certain and more overt test" (ll. 107-8) .13 Fourth, Othello is given an opportunity to answer the charges and intro duce his own evidence. He accepts the authority of the council and serves as a witness in his own defense, stating that he will "present" (1. 126) how he was able to win Desdemona's love without witchcraft or potions (11. 129-70). He also requests permission to call the only other relevant witness, Desdemona: Send for the lady ... And let her speak of me before her father. Ifyou do find me foul in her report ... let your sentence Even fall upon my life. (11. n6-18, 120-21) The Duke replies, "Fetch Desdemona hither" (1. 122); and when she arrives, Othello says: "Here comes the lady, let her witness it" (1. 171). Desdemona's statement then provides the crucial evidence that causes her father to drop his case. The result of this process is the rightful exoneration of Othello, ending Iago's first plot against him. THE MISSING ELEMENTS OF LEGAL PROCESS IN ACT 5, SCENE 2 Act 5 offers a parallel. At this point, Othello stands in the position ofBra bantio, wrongly believing himself the victim of a "crime" (5.2.26), while Des demona and Cassio stand in the position of Othello, being falsely suspected. Adultery was an ecclesiastical crime,14 as well as a basis for a legal separation known as a divorce a mensa et thoro. 15 Desdemona previously referred to the le gal nature of adultery when she denied being a "strumpet" by telling Othello that she preserved her "vessel" from any "hated foul unlawful touch" (4.2.86; emphasis added). Again in act 5, when Othello charges her with being "used" by Cassio, she clarifies by asking, "How? unlawfully?" and Othello answers "Ay" (5.2.70).16 Othello could have pursued the legal charge of adultery in a church court or, alternatively, could have sought an informal resolution by so liciting an arbiter such as the Duke. But Othello refuses to give Desdemona or Cassio the procedural rights that produced his deserved vindication in act l, opting instead for private revenge. Most prominently, Othello is a judge in his own case. In the first words of the final scene, Othello famously states, "It is the cause, it is the cause" (5.2.1). He sees himself not as merely slaying his unfaithful wife, but as performing a public service, a necessary "sacrifice" (1. 65) "else she'll betray more men" (1. 6). When he says "O balmy breath, that dost almost persuade I Justice to break Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 125 her sword!" (11. 16-17), Othello clearly thinks of himself as meting out Justice or even as the embodiment ofJustice.17 As Honigmann notes, the emblems of 1 Justice usually include not only a sword but also a scale to weigh evidence. " By this time, Othello has decided what evidence to consider-only the "ocu lar proof'' he demands from Iago (3.3.363). Thus, despite being an interested party, Othello has taken it upon himself to perform all these functions: weigh the evidence, determine guilt, set the sentence, and carry out the execution. Consider the other missing elements from act 5. Cassio is never directly ac cused. Regarding Desdemona, Othello's accusations before act 5 are vague; he never specifies the man he suspects her with, much less the basis for his suspicion. Only in act 5 does Othello name Cassio, and by then there is little benefit to this procedural "notice" because Othello has just stated he is there to kill Desdemona and that there is only time for her to confess and pray for for giveness. Even then, Othello supplies no detail to the charges and no evidence against her. He mentions no circumstances of her supposed assignations. Of particular note, Othello denies to Desdemona the one evidentiary right she requests. Where Othello was allowed to call a witness (Desdemona) to present evidence in his defense, he refuses Desdemona's request to call Cas sio. Shakespeare makes the contrast explicit. Where Othello previously says, "Send for the lady ... let her speak" (1+u6-17), and the Duke replies, "Fetch Desdemona hither" (1. 122), Desdemona says of Cassio, "Send for the man and ask him" (5.2.50), and "Send for him hither, I Let him confess the truth" (5.2.67-68). Where the Duke hears the witness Desdemona, Othello sends Iago to kill the witness Cassio, though Cassio has never once been confronted with the accusation for which he and Desdemona are condemned. THE MEANING OF THE COMPARISON If the parallel between these scenes were not already clear, note another common thread. In act I, Brabantio remarks that the case he will present to the Duke is "not an idle cause" (r.2.95), while, in his defense, Othello refers to himself speaking poorly for "my cause" (1+89). Regarding Othello's suspi cion ofDesdemona, Iago and Desdemona both refer to it as a "cause," (3 +414, 3+158), which is echoed in act 5 when Othello states, "It is the cause, it is the cause" (5.2.1). 19 We thus observe how differently the legal causes are resolved. In act l, Othello's innocence is determined by a semipublic process that in cludes several basic procedural elements from legal trials. In act 5, Desdemona and Cassio's guilt is determined by an interested party who bypasses law for private vengeance. The comparison makes Othello look all the more flawed and hypocritical. 126 RICHARD H. MCADAMS Othello does have reason to prefer private vengeance. A lawsuit would pub licize his dishonor and fail to give him the deaths he seeks for Desdemona and Cassio (adultery was not a capital crime). Yet a legal process would have given Othello something of infinitely greater value. The act r process reaches the truth, exonerating the wrongly accused, while private vengeance tragically misfires, destroying both the innocent accused and the accuser. The omission of legal procedures would be less significant were it not for one additional fact: the fragility ofiago's scheme.2° The absence oflaw causes the tragedy, because we have every reason to believe that legal process would have exposed Iago's deception. Perhaps the best evidence for this point is how quickly Othello reverses course as soon as he hears Emilia assert, without cor roboration, that she stole Desdemona's handkerchief at Iago's request and gave it to him (see 5.2.223-27). Iago proclaims that Emilia is lying, but her mere assertion is enough to provoke Othello to attack Iago. Ironically, Othello did not believe Emilia in act 4, when she vehemently stated that Desdemona and Cassio spent no time alone together (4.2.1-23). The difference in act 5 is that there, as in an open trial process, he reveals for the first time the grounds of his suspicion-the handkerchief and Iago-allowing Emilia to give her rel evant testimony. When she presents the previously unthinkable possibility that Othello's "ancient,'121 "Honest Iago,'122 has deceived him, Othello realizes that all the evidence against Desdemona is linked to Iago, rendering it correlated and suspect. Just as the legal process appears to convince even Brabantio of Othello's innocence, a few lines from Emilia are sufficient to convince Othello ofDesdemona's and Cassia's innocence. A process like the one in act r, scene 3, would have presumably included Emilia's testimony, but much more. Cassio would have been given a chance to deny Iago's charges and to explain the conversation Othello overheard (where, at Iago's prompting, he mistook Cassia's comments about Bianca to refer to Desdemona). Roderigo might have testified about Iago's scheme to in duce Cassio to engage in a drunken brawl, not to mention Iago's confession of his hatred of the Moor and his initial scheme to induce Brabantio to attack Othello. With Desdemona and Cassio denying the charge, Emilia and Roderigo impugning Iago's motives, and Iago subject to rigorous questioning, there can be little doubt that any impartial fact-finder would have seen through Iago's deception. One might object that Shakespeare could have made the contrast I am advo cating more explicit, had he intended the play to praise legal process by show ing the consequences of its absence. Yet the contrast is clear enough, given all the references to law. And there are more specific references to the legal alter- Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 127 native. When Othello first considers the possibility of Desdemona's infidelity, he contemplates what he might do if his suspicions prove true and states: "I'd whistle her off and let her down the wind/To prey at fortune" and that "my relief/ Must be to loathe her" (3.3.266-71). English law, however, placed on spouses an obligation of cohabitation. 23 To "whistle her off and let her down the wind I To prey at fortune" is to repudiate this obligation, which one could lawfully do only after a divorce a mensa et thoro, a legal separation. Adultery was one of the grounds on which a church court would grant a separation. Af.. ter Othello manifests his suspicion to Desdemona, she tells Iago that she will continue to love Othello even if"he do shake me off/ To beggarly divorcement" (4.2.159-60). 24 Shakespeare did not need to be any more explicit about Othello's legal op tions because they would have been obvious to his audience. We can see this option in other plays of the same era. When Shakespeare a few years later wrote The Winter's Tale, he had the jealous King Leontes, who suspects his wife Hermi one ofadultery, put her on trial for treason (although, admittedly, Leontes does not accept the resulting exoneration by an Oracle). Consider also Ben Jonson's comedy Every Man in His Humour, first performed a few years before Shakes peare wrote Othello by a troupe that included Shakespeare. The play includes a jealous character Thorello (in the original Quarto version; his name is Kitely in the revised Folio), who some critics believe is the inspiration for the name Othello. 25 Thorello believes that his wife is engaging in adultery; his response is to bring his concerns to Duke (Justice in the Folio) Clement, whose probing questions ofvarious parties reveals Thorello's error. The magistrate concludes: "Why this is a mere trick, a device; you are gulled in this" (Q 5.I.214-15).26 No doubt anyone investigating Iago's accusations would have said the same to Othello. Indeed, Emilia says something similar to Othello when she realizes that Iago has misled him into killing Desdemona: "O gull, 0 dolt, As ignorant as dirt!" (5 .2.159-60; emphasis added). 27 The alternative oflegal process was sufficiently apparent that the play's ref.. erences to the law would have alerted the audience that Othello was rejecting that option. And it is this rejection that causes the tragedy: the deaths ofDesde mona, Othello, Emilia, Roderigo, and possibly even Iago. Thus, Othello is a play praising law or at least the virtues of the deliberative processes law employs. 2. Specific Legal Issues in Othello: Was Iago Criminally Liable for the Death of Desdemona? Given a legal frame, Iago's manipulation of Othello stands as one of literature's great thought experiments for law, specifically for evaluating the 128 RICHARD H. MCADAMS doctrine of criminal complicity (aiding and abetting or accomplice liability). The obvious question is whether Iago is, under English law of the period, guilty of some homicide offense, such as murder, for the killing ofDesdemona. THE LAW OF ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND Let us begin by assuming that Othello is legally guilty for the murder of Des demona, as Emilia repeatedly suggests in act 5, scene 2 (11. 163, 166, 181, 183), with the eventual agreement of Othello (!. 291, calling himself an "honourable murderer"). Iago's liability turns on whether he was a "principal" or an "ac cessory" of Othello in that murder. The common law at this time categorized principals as (1) those who commit the criminal act themselves-by their own hand-and are therefore directly guilty without need for complicity doctrine; and (2) those who do not commit the criminal act themselves but aid or en courage its commission and are present at its commission. 28 Later the law called these two, respectively, the principal in the jirst degree and the principal in the second degree. Othello would be (with caveats below) the principal in the first degree. Accessories provided aid or encouragement to a principal (before or af ter the fact), but unlike principals, the accessory was not present at the crime's commission. Presence comes to include standing as a lookout even some dis tance away from the actual crime. 29 The difference between principal and accessory has important legal effects. The principal's crime stands on its own footing and is not conditioned on the conviction of some other principal. By contrast, the accessory's guilt is purely derivative from the principal's guilt, so the former can only be convicted if the latter is convicted, and only of the same crime.3° THE LIMITED TEXT ON WHICH IAGO IS OTHELLO'S ACCESSORY Iago was not present at Desdemona's murder, not even outside the bed chamber door serving as a lookout, and is therefore not a principal. Is he an accessory? He did not provide physical aid in the murder, but it is a monumen tal understatement to say that he "encouraged" the crime. Here is a partial list of what Iago does to work Othello into a jealous rage: (1) lures Cassio into a drunken brawl so Othello will discharge him, so Cassio will seek Desdemona's help in reinstatement, and their meetings will seem to support Othello's suspi cions; (2) repeatedly asserts Desdemona's infidelity and Cassia's admission to that adultery; (3) plants Desdemona's handkerchiefwith Cassio; and (4) stages an overheard conversation with Cassio about his sexual encounters with Bianca and manipulates it so that Othello believes Cassio is speaking of Desdemona. Here's the surprise: Although Iago is an accessory to Desdemona's murder, Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 129 none of the above behavior is necessary to make him an accessory. More as tonishing, arguably none of the above behavior is stifjident to make Iago guilty either. For I have left out the one thing that certainly does suffice, and might be necessary, a single line Iago speaks in act 4, scene 1: "Do it not with poison, strangle her in her bed-even the bed she hath contaminated" (11. 204-5). These words may be pivotal. The standard case of complicity-by encouragement involves an individual's endorsing the crime's commission (prior to its occurrence)-for example, "strangle her"-and this endorsement is absent when the individual merely suggests a motive for the crime. Or, as others have put it, in the standard case, an accomplice's encouragement is "transparent" to the principal in the first degree who understands that he is be ing encouraged to offend; merely creating a motive for crime lacks this trans parency.31 Whether there can be accomplice liability outside this standard case remains an open question. Real-world encouragements virtually always involve an endorsement; I haven't located a case deciding whether encouragement without endorsement is sufficient. Yet the great English criminal law commen tator Sir James Fitzjames Stephen articulated the endorsement requirement in 1883, speaking specifically about Iago. He concluded, "Iago could not have been convicted as an accessory ... but for one single remark-'Do it not with poison, strangle her in her bed.'"32 That Iago's guilt may turn on this one statement is surprising. When Emilia learns that her husband is the "insinuating rogue" (4.2.133) who drove Othello to kill Desdemona, she says to him (s.2.183): "And your reports have set the murder on." Emilia does not know that Iago ever said "strangle her" to Othello, but that seems not to be important to the truth of her conclusion. WHAT IS IAGO'S CRIME? MANSLAUGHTER, MURDER, OR PETTY TREASON? To this point, I have assumed that Othello murdered Desdemona. But there are two other legal possibilities, each showing Iago to benefit legally from being an accessory rather than a principal. First, it is possible that Othello is guilty not of murder, but of manslaughter. Sanford Kadish and at least one judi cial opinion have noted this possibility. 33 In Shakespeare's time, murder was a killing that occurred with "malice forethought," while manslaughter was a killing that occurred upon a "sudden occasion."34 I am skeptical of the claim that Othello killed upon a "sudden occasion," because he broods for at least several hours, considers the use of poison, and gives Desdemona time to pray. Nonetheless, a jury deciding Othello's fate might never learn all that the play's 130 RICHARD H. MCADAMS audience knows.35 There is no one other than Othello to testify as to the final events in the bedchamber. Had Othello lived to go to (an English) trial, perhaps he would have persuaded the jury that he had suddenly become convinced of the adultery immediately before he killed Desdemona in a momentary rage. If so, Kadish notes the absurdity ofiago's benefiting from Othello's success: why should Iago get the benefit of the mitigation intended for those who kill out of a sudden occasion, when "Iago ... coldbloodedly engineered the killing"?'" But if we take this scenario seriously, then the problem is even greater than the one Kadish states. If Othello committed manslaughter, the difficulty is not merely that Iago is convicted only of manslaughter, but that he is legally guilty of no crime. The period law Sir Edward Coke describes contains no category of accessory before the fact for the "sudden" crime of manslaughter. 37 The logic appears to be that if one who encourages the crime had time and inclination to leave the scene before the killing, or the principal had time to separate from the en courager before the killing, then the crime could not be sudden enough to be manslaughter. Conversely, if the crime were sudden enough to be manslaugh ter, there could be no encouragers ofit who were no longer present at the scene. IfOthello convinces the jury that he committed only manslaughter, Iago goes entirely free. There is a parallel problem. Even if Othello and Iago were convicted of mur der, the English audience might have thought Iago had committed a more seri ous crime-petty treason. The method ofexecution for petty treason was more painful than the ordinary hanging for murder.38 In Shakespeare's day, two cat egories of petty treason would have been relevant: a wife killing a husband and a servant killing his master or his master's wife. 39 If Othello and Iago stood in a master-servant relationship, then Iago would commit petty treason ifhe were a principal in the killing of Desdemona. Yet because the spousal category was hierarchical, the husband, the social superior, did not himself commit petty treason by unlawfully killing his wife. As a mere accessory to Othello, Iago is guilty only of Othello's crime of murder and not the petty treason he would commit ifhe had himself, as a servant, done what he encouraged Othello to do. For as Coke states: "The accessory cannot be guilty of petit treason where the principal is guilty of but murder."40 Did Othello and Iago stand in a master-servant relationship? John MacDon nell's treatise on the law of master and servant, written two and a half centu ries after the death of Shakespeare, states, "No word in legal literature is more common or more ambiguous than 'servant."' The military context complicates matters, but it is plausible that for these purposes the ensign Iago was legally Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 131 his commander's servant, given how MacDonnell states the general definition: "A servant is one who for consideration agrees to work subject to the orders of another."41 Certainly, Shakespeare encourages us to associate Othello and his color· bearer Iago, 42 respectively, with master and servant. First, although Iago ex plains to Roderigo that he is not genuinely loyal in his service to Othello, he does refer to Othello as his "master" (r.r.41-43) and speak to Othello of his "service" to him (I.2-4; 3.3.470). We see Othello treat Iago as a servant when he orders him to fetch his luggage (2.r.206-7). Second, Iago's wife Emilia is ex plicitly the servant ofDesdemona (q.297), a fact that differs from Cinthio's Un Capitano Moro, where Desdemona and the ensign's wife are merely friends. So Shakespeare intended to introduce this master-servant relationship. We might think it a logical extension of the petty-treason rule: ifit applies when a servant kills the master or the master's wife, then perhaps it should also apply when the servant or the servant's husband kills the master or the master's wife. Thus, it is plausible that the master-servant relationship applies and there fore that the period law again misses the mark in judging Iago's crime. That Iago manipulates Othello to kill the woman he loves makes Iago's deeds more monstrous than if he had killed her himself. But from the law's perspective, it makes him less culpable, guilty of murder rather than petty treason, or no crime rather than manslaughter. COULD IAGO ACTUALLY BE CONVICTED FOR THE MURDER OF DESDEMONA? The legal problems discussed above are almost trivial, however, compared to the final issue. Period law regarded accomplice liability as purely derivative of the crime of the principal(s). If the principal(s) went unconvicted, no acces sory could be convicted. 43 This is not a problem of evidence but a categorical rule. Recall that being a principal in the second degree required physical pres· · ence during the commission of the crime. Because Iago was not present at the scene of Desdemona's murder, he was merely an accessory. Thus, he stood to benefit from this peculiar limitation: because the dead could not be convicted, Othello's suicide bars Iago's conviction. 44 In sum, Othello illustrates a surpris ing set of serious deficiencies in the English criminal law of the period. 3. Using Law to Understand Iago's Scheme Given the general interest Shakespeare and his audience had in law and the legal frame presented in Othello, a legal analysis might illuminate the actions in the play. Here, I claim that we can better grasp Iago's scheme by see- 132 RICHARD H. MCADAMS ing how it stood to exploit deficiencies in English law identified in the previous section. Iago minimized his legal liability by preserving his status as a mere ac cessory. He avoided becoming a principal by two otherwise puzzling choices: (I) his decision not to be present at the scene of Desdemona's killing and (2) his effort to dissuade Othello from using poison to kill Desdemona. TWO PUZZLES: IAGO AVOIDING POISON AND PRESENCE In the long process by which Iago convinces Othello to kill Desdemona, there is a crucial passage in act 4, scene 1 (already partly quoted), where the two men discuss the means of her death: Othello: Get me some poison, Iago, this night. I'll not expostulate with her, lest her body and beauty unprovide my mind again. This night, Iago. Iago: Do it not with poison, strangle her in her bed-even the bed she hath contaminated. (ll. 201-5) We are left with two questions that I believe are related: Why does Iago counsel against poison? And why doesn't Iago arrange for his presence at the scene of the crime he works so hard to bring about? Iago's advice against poison is puzzling. Othello gives a strong argument for poison: he fears he will not be able to go through with a means of killing that requires direct contact with Desdemona. In act 3, scene 3, he decides to acquire "some swift means" to kill her (ll. 479-80), but when he sees her again in scene 4, he is unable to go through with it. Thus, he needs poison to kill her at a distance, "lest her body and beauty unprovide [his] mind again." Above all else, Iago does not want Othello to fail. As he says, "This is the night I That either makes me or fordoes me quite" (s.r.128-29). An abandoned attempt on Desdemona's life could lead her or others to ask questions that uncover the falsity of Othello's suspicion.45 So why does Iago counsel against the method of killing that is most likely to succeed?46 The puzzle would be less acute iflago had ensured his presence at the scene of the killing. Even if Iago had good reason to recommend strangulation, he could be confident that Othello would go through with this means of killing only iflago were himself present to whip up Othello's fury. Of course, as act 5 unfolds, Othello kills Desdemona without Iago's contemporaneous encour agement (though by suffocation rather than strangulation). But in act 4, when Iago counsels against poison, there is no reason for him to be confident that Othello will be able to strangle her. Othello cannot maintain a consistent an ger, but follows each violent statement regarding Desdemona with a forgiv- Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 133 ing or admiring one. For example, he begins "Ay, let her rot and perish and be damned tonight, for she shall not live," and ends "O, the world hath not a sweeter creature: she might lie by an emperor's side and command him tasks" (4.r.178-82). Each time his fury subsides, Iago supplies just the right words to reignite it (for example, see +LI89-91). Without that ongoing manipulation, Iago should worry that Othello will, as he fears, waver again when he physically encounters Desdemona. Indeed, note that Iago arranges to be nearby on the three other occasions when he prods a person toward violence: when Othello and Brabantio meet in the streets (r.2), when Roderigo lures Cassio into a brawl (2.3), and when Roderigo tries to kill Cassio (5.1). Why not in this one case? It is not enough to say that the ambush of Cassio and the killing of Desdemona occur at the same time, because Iago could have influenced their timing. Returning to poison, the best two arguments against its use are (1) the poetic justice ofstrangling Desdemona in the "bed she hath contaminated," as Othello recognizes in his response: "Good, good: the justice of it pleases: very good" (4.r.206); and (2) the sadistic attraction Iago may have for putting Othello onto a more active and sexualized form of killing. 47 Note that neither point will mat ter if Othello can't go through with the killing. One might say that the justice Othello sees in strangulation will make it more likely that he will complete the act of killing.•• But a bedchamber strangulation is more likely to succeed only when compared to other forms of face-to-face killing. Poison would be even more likely to work than strangulation, because it avoids physical confrontation altogether and makes it easy for Iago to continue goading Othello up to the moment when he places the poison. In any event, Iago and the audience should see a more powerful poetic logic in the use of poison, one more in keeping with other elements of the play. First, Iago has metaphorically referred to his jealousy (2.r.293-95) and the jealousy he inspires in Othello (3.3.328-29) as poison. He refers back to · poison when Othello lapses into a trance, saying: "Work on, I My medicine, work!" (4 .r.44-45; compare 3.3.335). Overflowing with toxic jealousy, Othello should now infuse Desdemona with his poison. Second, Brabantio charges that Othello has poisoned Desdemona: that he "[a] bused" her "with drugs or minerals" (r.2.74), "corrupted" her by "spells and medicines" (1+61-62), and won her with "mixtures powerful o'er the blood I Or with some dram" (r+ro5-6). With Iago present, the First Senator asks Othello "Did you ... poi son this young maid's affections?" (L3.II2-r3). It would complete a great irony ifOthello were to vindicate the false charges by poisoning Desdemona in act 5. Finally, English society then regarded murder by poison as "the most detest- 134 RICHARD H. MCADAMS able of all [murders], because it is most horrible, and fearfull to the nature of man, and of all others can be least prevented," which seems the entirely apt tool for Shakespeare's greatest villain. 49 Why would Iago advise against poison? And, having done so, why doesn't he create a plan to be near the confrontation with Desdemona to ensure that Othello goes through with strangulation? Why risk failure? These puzzles are particularly interesting because Shakespeare went out of his way to create them. In Cinthio's Un Capitano Moro, the Moor and the ensign are "discussing whether the Lady should perish by poison or the dagger, and not deciding on either of them,"50 when the ensign proposes an alternative method, which they adopt: to beat Desdemona to death with a sand-filled stocking, place her in the bed, and pull the ceiling down on her, to make the death appear accidental. One might think that, in keeping a similar detail-the rejection of poison Shakespeare was simply following his source. Yet a careful comparison shows the opposite. First, in Cinthio's story, the plotters together consider and together reject poison. In Shakespeare's play, Othello proposes and Iago rejects the use of poison. Second, the Italian story offers no reason favoring the use of poison, whereas the play gives the power ful reason discussed above. Third, the alternative to poison in the story is a method (pulling down the ceiling) that will make the death appear accidental, whereas in the play the alternative Iago proposes (strangulation) will make the crime manifest. Nor, finally, does poison appear in the story as a metaphor for jealousy, or as a possible illicit means by which the Moor gained Desde mona's love. So the problem being discussed-why does Iago dissuade Othello from using poison?-simply does not exist in the source story. Shakespeare created it. Shakespeare also created the puzzle about Iago's presence by removing his character from the scene of the killing. In Un Capitano Moro, not only is the manner of death different from that in Othello(!), but the ensign is free to be present at the scene with Desdemona because he has already attempted to kill the Cassio character at an earlier time. And not only is the ensign present at the scene; he is the primary actor. The Moor conceals the ensign in a bedchamber closet and, when Desdemona is nearby, the ensign jumps out and strikes her with the sand-filled stocking while the Moor watches and expresses contempt for Desdemona. Legally, if we read Cinthio's story through later English law, the Moor is there depicted as only the principal in the second degree. Shakespeare had good dramatic reasons to make Othello the primary actor and to have him kill Desdemona with his own hands. There are also narrative advantages to narrowing the death scene to just Othello and Desdemona. But Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 135 Shakespeare does not merely reverse the roles of Iago and Othello in the kill ing. He also does not let Iago hang back quietly in the background of the bed chamber, ready to speak words of contempt to Desdemona (or encouragement to Othello), nor even to stand outside the door keeping watch. Shakespeare follows Cinthio's story in many details, so why does he completely remove Iago from the scene of the crime he worked so hard to bring about? A LEGAL THEORY: IAGO PRESERVES HIS STATUS AS AN ACCESSORY The law explains each puzzle. Iago's presence at the scene of the killing and the use of poison would both have increased Iago's legal exposure. As explained above, Iago is a mere accessory to the unlawful killing of Desdemona because he was not present at the scene of the crime he encouraged. As discussed, there are many reasons Iago stood to gain from staying on the accessory side of the line. First, there is a chance that Othello could convince a jury that he had com mitted only manslaughter, in which case a mere accessory avoids all criminal liability. Second, as principal, Iago might be guilty of petty treason, but as ac cessory he cannot be. Third, anything preventing Othello's conviction will bar Iago's conviction. Many impediments might arise, some possibly with the help of Iago. I already mentioned that Othello's suicide barred Iago's conviction. Othello might also have died resisting arrest or have fl ed beyond the reach of Venetian authorities. There is a chance that he would have been acquitted on grounds of insanity. I am skeptical, but as with the manslaughter claim, the jury would not have learned all that the audience knows. If Othello persuaded a jury to acquit him on grounds of insanity, the law would not permit Iago's con viction as an accessory even though he is (legally) sane. Finally, there is a theo retical chance that a character in Othello's position would be pardoned by the Crown, which would also render the accessories immune from prosecution. Iago thus stood to benefit in any number of ways from maintaining his status · as an accessory, which is why he avoided being present at Desdemona's death. One might respond that, by the end, it no longer matters whether Iago evades punishment for Desdemona's death. English law would have condemned Iago to hang for his murders ofRoderigo and Emilia (and Cassio ifhe died of the wounds Iago inflicted). But what matters here is Iago's plan at the time he sets up Desdemona's death. Overall, it appears that he never intended to be caught. 51 He does not appear to plan the murder of Emilia, whose untimely testimony he does not anticipate. He did plan to kill Roderigo and Cassio, but Cassio did not recognize Iago when he stabbed him in the dark and, if things had gone right 136 RICHARD H . MCADAMS for Iago, Roderigo would have died immediately from his wounds and left no letters on his person. Thus, the remaining question is how Iago could maxi mize his chances of evading legal responsibility for Desdemona's murder. One answer is: by avoiding presence at the scene. Now for the second puzzle. Given that he won't be present to urge Othello on, why does Iago discourage the use of poison? There are two legal expla nations. First, the law considered the use of poison sufficient to demonstrate the "malice forethought" required for murder. Poison would have eliminated the chance that Othello's killing was merely manslaughter.52 If the killer uses poison, the law will reject the claim of sudden rage. By contrast, Iago's recom mended method-strangulation-would be perfectly consistent with the kind of impulsive killing that constituted manslaughter, for which Iago could not be convicted. In addition, there was a special complicity rule just for poisonings, an ex ception to the basic rule that presence is required to be a principal. Coke states the rule in the Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, published shortly after Shakespeare's death: "In case of poysoning, albeit the delinquent be not present when the poison is received, yet is he principall, and so the principall and accessarie may be both absent."53 Coke cites one pertinent precedent: Vaux's Case, decided in 159r. 54 William Vaux was convicted for giving his victim, Nico las Ridley, a substance, "cantharides"-a preparation from the blister beetle used as a male aphrodisiac ("Spanish fly"), but highly toxic55-that Vaux said would help Ridley bear a child with his wife but which instead killed him. The 1604 report of that case, also written by Coke, notes: "It was agreed per Curiam, that Vaux was a principal murderer, although he was not present at the time of the receipt of the poison, for otherwise he would be guilty of such horri ble offence, and yet should be unpunished, which would be inconvenient and mischievous."56 The logic is obvious: killing by poison does not require that anyone involved in the poisoning be present at the time and place the poison is consumed. With a rigid application of the presence requirement, there would be no principals to convict for many murders by poison. The report in Vaux's Case contrasts the traditional dictum, as cited by Frederic William Maitland, that "the law will suffer a mischief rather than an inconvenience" by saying that it would be both "inconvenient and mischievous" to let the poisoner go unpunished.57 Requir ing the principal to be present at a poisoning would be mischievous for letting a guilty party go free and inconvenient for creating a contradiction in the law. Thus, if Othello had used poison, then the fact that Iago was not present at Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 137 the scene of Desdemona's death would not guarantee that Iago was merely an accessory. If he were a principal, none of the discussed limitations on liabil ity would apply: Iago (r) could be convicted (a) of murder even if Othello were guilty of only manslaughter and (b) of petty treason even if Othello were guilty of only murder or manslaughter; and (2) he could be convicted even if Othello were not convicted because Othello (a) committed suicide, (b) died resisting ar rest, (c) fled the jurisdiction, (d) won an insanity defense, or (e) was granted a royal pardon. Thus, steering Othello away from poison was tactically brilliant, putting Iago in a far stronger legal position. As the judges feared in Vaux's Case, Iago "would be guilty of such horrible offense, and yet should be unpunished." In other words, he would be morally guilty of a "contrived murder" (r.2.3) but would have committed none in the eyes of the law. 58 Of course, even with the poison exception, it is not certain that Iago would have been a principal. The exception need not make everyone involved in a poi soning a principal. Years later, in the Third Part of the Institutes, Coke describes the poison exception as applying only to one who "layeth or infuseth" the poison. 59 Iago might have remained a mere accessory if he merely brought the poison to Othello, who placed it in food or drink that Desdemona would ingest. Yet the basic point remains. Coke's statement that, absent presence, only one who "layeth or infuseth" the poison was a principal is his subsequent gloss, published after 1628 and not available when Shakespeare wrote Othello. Wil liam Staunford's r557 Les P!ees Del Coron, the first textbook on English Criminal Law, makes no mention of the poison exception to the presence requirement, so Vaux's Case appears to have invented the exception.60 As Coke's earlier report of the case does not contain the "layeth or infuseth" dictum, it would appear that at the time Shakespeare wrote Othello (within the period 1601-4), the only certainty the law offered was that a person could not be a principal if he was absent from the crime's commission unless the means of killing was poison. Thus, at the time, one planning to be absent from the commission of a murder he or she encouraged would have a strong reason to prefer any means but poison-to guarantee staying on the accessory side of the line. In any event, even if Coke's later interpretive gloss governed, if Iago had provided poison, he could not be certain that Othello would not have involved him in placing it. Iago could not easily have refused such a request, and his participation in "laying or infusing" the poison would have certainly made him a principal. Even though Shakespeare knew some law, we should wonder if he knew the 138 RICHARD H. MCADAMS criminal law that I have just reviewed. Did he know ofVaux's Case? I have lo cated no direct evidence; I can only speculate. But the timing is interesting. The date of the decision in Vaux's Case is 1591, during Shakespeare's writing ca reer but well before he began Othel!o, which was 1601 at the earliest. The first printed report ofVaux's Case is Coke's in 1604, while Honigmann says the play was most likely written from mid-1601 to mid-1602. 61 Others date the play as late as 1604, 62 but more salient is the fact that we know that legal knowledge of the day did not depend solely on printed reports. Lawyers orally passed on "common learning" and circulated their handwritten reports of cases. 63 So the legal community could have known of the case before Coke's report. Moreover, as noted, murder-by-poison was a terrifying news item of the period. Unless Shakespeare received his legal knowledge strictly from printed works, it is not difficult to imagine his interest in a case where a man is hanged for supplying a poison he represents to the victim as the aphrodisiac he needs to father a child. 64 Thus, Shakespeare mostly follows Cinthio's story but removes Iago from the scene of the crime he worked so hard to bring about because Iago would oth erwise be a principal, guilty of murder despite Othello's death, flight, insan ity, pardon, or successful plea of manslaughter. Similarly, Shakespeare makes Iago reject the method of killing that everyone expects this villain to use-poi son-to preserve his status as accessory. And it works. Given Othello's suicide, English law would have made it impossible to convict Iago of Desdemona's murder. 4. Conclusion Othello matters to law because it brilliantly illustrates some perpetually vexing problems in the criminal doctrine of complicity. It is difficult enough to define the responsibility of one who aids or encourages crime in the typi cal case, where that secondary actor is less morally responsible for the crime than the principal who carries it out. Yet through Iago, the play vividly shows that an encourager of crime can be more responsible for its occurrence-more monstrous-than the one he encourages. In turn, a legal frame matters to the interpretation ofOthello. The tragedy oc curs because Othello denies Desdemona and Cassio the legal procedures that previously vindicated him from a false charge. And law helps us understand Iago's actions. He avoids being present at the scene of Desdemona's killing and dissuades Othello from using poison in order to preserve his status as an ac cessory, which allows him to avoid criminal liability for Desdemona's death Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 139 under a variety of scenarios, including the one that occurs-Othello's suicide. Iago's brilliant deviousness allows him to manipulate law as well as people. 65 NOTES I thank Jacob Corre and Dick Helmholz for generous and indispensable guidance in my historical inquiries into the English law of the period and Richard Strier for generous and indispensable conversations on Othello, Shakespeare, and drafts of this chapter. For insightful comments on these drafts, I also thank Bradin Cormack, Alan Dessen, Mary Anne Franks, Anna Marshall, Martha Nussbaum, an anonymous referee, the participants in the May 2009 Law and Shakespeare conference at the University of Chicago, and participants at faculty workshops at Brooklyn Law School, Emory, and the University of Chicago. Brian McLeish, Kimberly St. Clair, and Douglas Wilbur pro vided excellent research assistance. r. For an argument that Shakespeare was generally uneasy with law and legal proce dures, see Richard Strier's essay in this volume. 2. Daniel J. Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers? Shakespeare's Legal Appeal (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 15-20; W. Nicholas Knight, Shakespeare's Hidden Life: Shakespeare at the Law, 1585-1595 (New York: Mason and Lipscomb, 1973). 3. Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers, 14-15. 4. Ibid., 15. See generally Lorna Hutson, The Invention ofSuspicion: Law and Mimesis in Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 5. Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers, 15. 6. See Richard Helmholz, "Shakespeare and the ius commune," unpublished manu script, May 2009, on file with the author. 7. All references to the play are to William Shakespeare, Othello, ed. E. A. J. Honig mann, Arden Shakespeare, 3rd ed. (Walton-on-Thames, UK: Thomas Nelson, 1996). 8. Ibid., 217n. 9. For an English translation, see Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957-65), 7:241-52, as cited in Honigmann, Othello, appendix 3, 370-86. 10. See Samuel Johnson, Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. Walter Raleigh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908), 2or. rr. See, e.g., Honigmann, introduction to Othello, 62-64; Harold C. Goddard, The Meaning ofShakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), part 2, p. 8r. 12. See Sir Edward Coke, The Third Part ofthe Institutes ofthe Laws of England (London, 1644), cap. 12, 6r-62; also J.B. Post, "Ravishment ofWomen and the Statutes ofWest minster," in Legal Records and the Historian, ed. J. H. Baker (London: Royal Historical Society, 1978), 150-60. 13. "Overt" invokes an element of a criminal attempt, while "test" refers to proof, trial, and evidence. See Honigmann, Othello, l42nn. 14. See Richard Cosin, Apologiefor Sundrie Proceedings by Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical (Lon don, 1593), part l, chap. 2, p. 20. 140 RICHARD H. MCADAMS 15. See Coke, Third Part of the Institutes, cap. 27, 89; also B. J. Sokol and Mary Sokol, Shakespeare, Law, and Marriage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 141-42. Divorce a mens a et thoro was not a complete legal severance of the marriage; the parties were not free to remarry. 16. Rodrigo also refers to his "unlawful" solicitation ofDesdemona. 4.2.2or. 17. See John Money, "Othello's 'It is the Cause ...':An Analysis," Shakespeare Survey 6 (1953): 94· 18. See Honigmann, Othello, 307n17. 19. Finally, after Desdemona's death, Cassio says to Othello, "I never gave you cause" (5.2.296). 20. See M. R. Ridley, introduction to William Shakespeare, Othello, ed. M. R. Ridley, Arden Shakespeare, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1958), !xix ("If Iago's plot does not work fast it will not work at all"). 2r. See, for example, r.r.32. The "ancient" is an older term for the rank of ensign, the color bearer of the company, who must be a person of particular courage, well liked and trusted. See Paul A. Jorgensen, Shakespeare's Military World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956), 107-9. 22. See r.3.295; 2.3.173; 5.2.71; 5.2.150. For a discussion of"honest" and "honesty" in Othello, see William Empson, The Structure ofComplex Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 218-49. 23. See note rs above. 24. In the final scene, when Desdemona begs for a lesser punishment-"banish me" (5.2.77)-she plausibly refers to the separation the law permits after this form of divorce. 25. See Hutson, Invention ofSuspicion, 325. 26. Ben Jonson, Every Man in His Humour, ed. Henry Holland Carter (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, r921), 226. 27. I thank Paxson Williams for bringing this comparison to my attention. 28. Coke, Third Part ofthe Institutes, cap. 27, 89. 29. See Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1893), book 4, chap. 3, p. 352. 30. Coke notes that "accessories sequitur naturam sui principalis." Third Part of the Institutes, 139· 3r. See Larry Alexander and Kimberly D. Kessler, "Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes," journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87 (1997): n38. 32. See James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (London, 1883), 3:8, emphasis added. A second reason is that we cannot legally know Iago in tends Desdemona's death until he speaks this line, because he previously (3.3.477) de clared, however disingenuously, "let her live." 33. See Sanford H. Kadish, "Complicity, Cause, and Blame: A Study in the Interpre tation of Doctrine," California Law Review 73 (1985): 323, 385; People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th IIII, II22, 24 P.3d I2IO, 1217 (2001). 34. See Coke, Third Part of the Institutes, cap. 8, 55. Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 141 3S· See Hutson, Invention of Suspicion, who argues that Shakespeare and contempo rary writers elicit from audiences the dual perspectives of one who knows all that the play reveals and of one who, like a jury, knows only what can be subsequently proved. 36. Kadish, "Complicity, Cause, and Blame," 386. 37. See Coke, Third Part of the Institutes, cap. 8, SS: "Manslaughter is a felony, and hereof there may be accessories after the fact done; but of murder, there may be acces sories, as well before, as after the fact." 38. For petty treason, women were burned while men were drawn (dragged) to the gallows and hanged. See Coke, Third Part ofthe Institutes, cap. 2, 20, 2r. 39. Matthew Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown I Historia Placitorum Coronae (London, 1690), chap. 29, "Concerning Petit Treason," 379. 40. See Coke, Third Part ofthe Institutes, cap. 64, 139· 4r. John MacDonell, The Law of Master and Servant (London: Stevens, 1883), 38, 34. 42. See note 21 above. 43. On Westminster Primer, cap. 14, Coke states: "For it is the ancient and funda mentall maxime of the common law, juri non est consonum, quad aliquis accessories in curia regis convincatur, antequam aliquis de facto fuer attinctus," meaning it is not the law that any accessory can be convicted in the king's bench before someone else is attainted of doing the act. See Sir Edward Coke, The Second Part ofthe Institutes ofthe Laws ofEngland (London, 1644), 183. See also 184: "[T]he charge of the jury is, that if they find the principall not guilty, they shall find the accessary not guilty also." 44. The rule was abandoned by the time of Blackstone. See Blackstone, Commentar ies, book 4, chap. 3, p. 3s6. 4S· Noting a parallel risk regarding Cassio, Iago says Cs .r.20-22): "[T] he Moor/ May unfold me to him-there stand I in much peril: I No, he must die." If he fails to kill her, the Moor might also "unfold" Iago to Desdemona. 46. Iago also shows himself to be knowledgeable of poppy and mandragora (3.3.333-36), which can be used as poisons. See Edward Tabor, "Plant Poisons in Shakespeare," Economic Botany 24 (1970): 81, 84-8s. 47. I thank Richard Strier for pointing out this interpretation to me. 48. I thank the anonymous referee for this point. 49. Coke, Third Part ofthe Institutes, cap. 7, 47, 48. Coke is sufficiently concerned about killing by poison that "for the better finding out of this horrible offense," he lists, at s2, seven known poisons (in a legal treatise!). Coke also notes, at 48, that for some period of the early sixteenth century (before Shakespeare), murder by poison was treated as treason and punished more harshly than other murder-by boiling to death. so. Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources, 7:383. sr. As late as acts, Iago is still brilliantly improvising to avoid discovery. He appears at the scene ofCassio's ambush in night attire, as if from bed Cs.r.47; see Honigmann, Othello, 299n), and he throws suspicion onto Bianca (5.r.85-86, 104-20). 52. Coke, Third Part ofthe Institutes, cap. 7, 5r. 53. Coke, Second Part ofthe Institutes, 1:183. 54. Pasch. 33 Eliz.: 76 English Reports, 992. 142 RICHARD H. MCADAMS 55. See A. Polettini, 0. Crippa, A. Ravagli, and A. Saragoni, "A Fatal Case of Poison ing with Cantharidin," Forensic Science International 56 (1992): 37; L. C. Nickolls and Don ald Teare, "Poisoning by Cantharidin," British Medical Journal 2 (1954): 1384. 56. 76 English Reports, 993. 57. See F. W. Maitland, ed., Year Books ofEdward II, vol. 1, 1 & 2 Edward II A.D. 1307-1309 (London: Bernard Quaritch, r903), xviii-xix ("Our old lawyers were fond of declaring that 'the law will suffer a mischief rather than an inconvenience,' by which they meant that it will suffer a practical hardship rather than an inconsistency or logical flaw"). See the discussion in Bra din Cormack, A Power to Do justice: Jurisdiction, English Literature, and the Rise of Common Law, 1509-1625 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 174· 58. Note the parallel to Shylock in The Merchant ofVenice, who seeks to kill Antonio by enforcing his contract rights, yet without committing a crime. See Richard A. Posner's essay in this volume, where he notes: "[Shylock] had no intention of killing Antonio unless the court ruled that he was legally entitled to do so" (p. r50). 59. Coke, Third Part ofthe Institutes, cap. 64, 138. 60. I thank Jacob Corre for his extraordinary assistance on this point. 6r. See Honigmann, Othello, appendix r. 62. Honigmann reviews (but rejects) scholarly work dating Othello as late as 1604. Ibid. 63. See J. H. Baker, The Law's Two Bodies: Some Evidential Problems in English Legal History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); also A. W. B. Simpson, Legal Theory and Legal History: Essays on the Common Law (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), 359-82. 64. News pamphlets of the period show an interest in London in murders commit ted elsewhere, particularly poisonings. In 1604 a news pamphlet recounted a poison ing murder in the County of Chester (today Cheshire), noting the need to correct "the rumours which ran up and down the streets of London" concerning the murder. See D. C. Collins, A Hand list of News Pamphlets, 1590-1610 (London: South-west Essex Tech nical College, 1943), 67-68. The murder in Vaux's Case occurred in Northumberland, which is on the Scottish border, but Cheshire is the northernmost county on the Welsh border, so news could obviously travel great distances. 65. See Strier's essay in this volume. Vengeance, Complicity, and Criminal Law in Othello 143 Readers with comments may address them to: Professor Richard H. McAdams University of Chicago Law School 1111 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 [email protected] The University of Chicago Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series For a listing of papers 1–400 please go to http://www.law.uchicago.edu/publications/papers/publiclaw. 401. Gary Becker, François Ewald, and Bernard Harcourt, “Becker on Ewald on Foucault on Becker” American Neoliberalism and Michel Foucauilt’s 1979 Birth of Biopolitics Lectures, September 2012 402. M. Todd Henderson, Voice versus Exit in Health Care Policy, October 2012 403. Aziz Z. Huq, Enforcing (but Not Defending) “Unconstitutional” Laws, October 2012 404. Lee Anne Fennell, Resource Access Costs, October 2012 405. Brian Leiter, Legal Realisms, Old and New, October 2012 406. Tom Ginsburg, Daniel Lnasberg-Rodriguez, and Mila Versteeg, When to Overthrow Your Government: The Right to Resist in the World’s Constitutions, November 2012 407. Brian Leiter and Alex Langlinais, The Methodology of Legal Philosophy, November 2012 408. Alison L. LaCroix, The Lawyer’s Library in the Early American Republic, November 2012 409. Alison L. LaCroix, Eavesdropping on the Vox Populi, November 2012 410. Alison L. LaCroix, On Being “Bound Thereby,” November 2012 411. Alison L. LaCroix, What If Madison had Won? Imagining a Constitution World of Legislative Supremacy, November 2012 412. Jonathan S. Masur and Eric A. Posner, Unemployment and Regulatory Policy, December 2012 413. Alison LaCroix, Historical Gloss: A Primer, January 2013 414. Jennifer Nou, Agency Self-Insulation under Presidential Review, January 2013 415. Aziz Z. Huq, Removal as a Political Question, February 2013 416. Adam B. Cox and Thomas J. Miles, Policing Immigration, February 2013 417. Anup Malani and Jonathan S. Masur, Raising the Stakes in Patent Cases, February 2013 418. Ariel Porat and Lior Strahilevits, Personalizing Default Rules and Disclosure with Big Data, February 2013 419. Douglas G. Baird and Anthony J. Casey, Bankruptcy Step Zero, February 2013 420. Alison L. LaCroix, The Interbellum Constitution and the Spending Power, March 2013 421. Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, Toward a Positive Theory of Privacy Law, March 2013 422. Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, Inside or Outside the System? March 2013 423. Nicholas G. Stephanopoulos, The Consequences of Consequentialist Criteria, March 2013 424. Aziz Z. Huq, The Social Production of National Security, March 2013 425. Aziz Z. Huq, Federalism, Liberty, and Risk in NIFB v. Sebelius, April 2013 426. Lee Anne Fennell, Property in Housing, April 2013 427. Lee Anne Fennell, Crowdsourcing Land Use, April 2013 428. William H. J. Hubbard, An Empiritcal Study of the Effect of Shady Grove v. Allstate on Forum Shopping in the New York Courts, May 2013 429. Daniel Abebe and Aziz Z. Huq, Foreign Affairs Federalism: A Revisionist Approach, May 2013 430. Albert W. Alschuler, Lafler and Frye: Two Small Band-Aids for a Festering Wound, June 2013 431. Tom Ginsburg, Jonathan S. Masur, and Richard H. McAdams, Libertarian Paternalism, Path Dependence, and Temporary Law, June 2013 432. Aziz Z. Huq, Tiers of Scrutiny in Enumerated Powers Jurisprudence, June 2013 433. Bernard Harcourt, Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments: A Mirror of the History of the Foundations of Modern Criminal Law, July 2013 434. Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and Beth Simmons, Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice, July 2013 435. Christopher Buccafusco and Jonathan S. Masur, Innovation and Incarceration: An Economic Analysis of Criminal Intellectual Property Law, July 2013 436. Rosalind Dixon and Tom Ginsburg, The South African Constitutional Court and Socio- Economic Rights as 'Insurance Swaps', August 2013 437. Bernard E. Harcourt, The Collapse of the Harm Principle Redux: On Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court’s Opinion in United States v. Windsor, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty (1859), and H.L.A. Hart’s Modern Harm Principle, August 2013 438. Brian Leiter, Nietzsche against the Philosophical Canon, April 2013 439. Sital Kalantry, Women in Prison in Argentina: Causes, Conditions, and Consequences, May 2013 440. Becker and Foucault on Crime and Punishment, A Conversation with Gary Becker, François Ewald, and Bernard Harcourt: The Second Session, September 2013 441. Daniel Abebe, One Voice or Many? The Political Question Doctrine and Acoustic Dissonance in Foreign Affairs, September 2013 442. Brian Leiter, Why Legal Positivism (Again)? September 2013 443. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Elections and Alignment, September 2013 444. Elizabeth Chorvat, Taxation and Liquidity: Evidence from Retirement Savings, September 2013 445. Elizabeth Chorvat, Looking Through' Corporate Expatriations for Buried Intangibles, September 2013 446. William H. J. Hubbard, A Theory of Pleading, Litigation, and Settlement, November 2013 447. Tom Ginsburg, Nick Foti, and Daniel Rockmore, “We the Peoples”: The Global Origins of Constitutional Preambles, March 2014 448. Lee Anne Fennell and Eduardo M. Peñalver, Exactions Creep, December 2013 449. Lee Anne Fennell, Forcings, December 2013 450. Jose Antonio Cheibub, Zachary Elkins, and Tom Ginsburg, Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism, December 2013 451. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, The South after Shelby County, October 2013 452. Lisa Bernstein, Trade Usage in the Courts: The Flawed Conceptual and Evidentiary Basis of Article 2’s Incorporation Strategy, November 2013 453. Tom Ginsburg, Political Constraints on International Courts, December 2013 454. Roger Allan Ford, Patent Invalidity versus Noninfringement, December 2013 455. M. Todd Henderson and William H.J. Hubbard, Do Judges Follow the Law? An Empirical Test of Congressional Control over Judicial Behavior, January 2014 456. Aziz Z. Huq, Does the Logic of Collective Action Explain Federalism Doctrine? January 2014 457. Alison L. LaCroix, The Shadow Powers of Article I, January 2014 458. Eric A. Posner and Alan O. Sykes, Voting Rules in International Organizations, January 2014 459. John Rappaport, Second-Order Regulation of Law Enforcement, April 2014 460. Nuno Garoupa and Tom Ginsburg, Judicial Roles in Nonjudicial Functions, February 2014 461. Aziz Huq, Standing for the Structural Constitution, February 2014 462. Jennifer Nou, Sub-regulating Elections, February 2014 463. Albert W. Alschuler, Terrible Tools for Prosecutors: Notes on Senator Leahy’s Proposal to “Fix” Skilling v. United States, February 2014 464. Aziz Z. Huq, Libertarian Separation of Powers, February 2014 465. Brian Leiter, Preface to the Paperback Edition of Why Tolerate Religion? February 2014 466. Jonathan S. Masur and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Deference Mistakes, March 2014 467. Eric A. Posner, Martii Koskenniemi on Human Rights: An Empirical Perspective, March 2014 468. Tom Ginsburg and Alberto Simpser, Introduction, chapter 1 of Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes, April 2014 469. Aziz Z. Huq, Habeas and the Roberts Court, April 2014 470. Aziz Z. Huq, The Function of Article V, April 2014 471. Aziz Z. Huq, Coasean Bargaining over the Structural Constitution, April 2014 472. Tom Ginsburg and James Melton, Does the Constitutional Amendment Rule Matter at All? Amendment Cultures and the Challenges of Measuring Amendment Difficulty, May 2014 473. Eric A. Posner and E. Glen Weyl, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulations: A Response to Criticisms, May 2014 474. Paige A. Epstein, Addressing Minority Vote Dilution Through State Voting Rights Acts, February 2014 475. William Baude, Zombie Federalism, April 2014 476. Albert W. Alschuler, Regarding Re’s Revisionism: Notes on "The Due Process Exclusionary Rule", May 2014 477. Dawood I. Ahmed and Tom Ginsburg, Constitutional Islamization and Human Rights: The Surprising Origin and Spread of Islamic Supremacy in Constitutions, May 2014 478. David Weisbach, Distributionally-Weighted Cost Benefit Analysis: Welfare Economics Meets Organizational Design, June 2014 479. William H. J. Hubbard, Nuisance Suits, June 2014 480. Saul Levmore and Ariel Porat, Credible Threats, July 2014 481. Brian Leiter, The Case Against Free Speech, June 2014 482. Brian Leiter, Marx, Law, Ideology, Legal Positivism, July 2014 483. John Rappaport, Unbundling Criminal Trial Rights, August 2014 484. Daniel Abebe, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Nile: The Economics of International Water Law, August 2014 485. Albert W. Alschuler, Limiting Political Contributions after Mccutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow, August 2014 486. Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and James Melton, Comments on Law and Versteeg's “The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution,” August 2014 487. William H. J. Hubbard, The Discovery Sombrero, and Other Metaphors for Litigation, September 2014 488. Genevieve Lakier, The Invention of Low-Value Speech, September 2014 489. Lee Anne Fennell and Richard H. McAdams, Fairness in Law and Economics: Introduction, October 2014 490. Thomas J. Miles and Adam B. Cox, Does Immigration Enforcement Reduce Crime? Evidence from 'Secure Communities', October 2014 491. Ariel Porat and Omri Yadlin, Valuable Lies, October 2014 492. Laura M. Weinrib, Civil Liberties outside the Courts, October 2014 493. Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap, October 2014 494. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Aligning Campaign Finance Law, October 2014 495. John Bronsteen, Christopher Buccafusco and Jonathan S. Masur, Well-Being and Public Policy, November 2014 496. Lee Anne Fennell, Agglomerama, December 2014 497. Avital Mentovich, Aziz Z. Huq, and Moran Cerf, The Psychology of Corporate Rights, December 2014 498. Lee Anne Fennell and Richard H. McAdams, The Distributive Deficit in Law and Economics, January 2015 499. Omri Ben-Shahar and Kyle D. Logue, Under the Weather: Government Insurance and the Regulation of Climate Risks, January 2015 500. Adam M. Samaha and Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, Don't Ask, Must Tell—and Other Combinations, January 2015 501. Eric A. Posner and Cass R. Sunstein, Institutional Flip-Flops, January 2015 502. Albert W. Alschuler, Criminal Corruption: Why Broad Definitions of Bribery Make Things Worse, January 2015 503. Jonathan S. Masur and Eric A. Posner, Toward a Pigovian State, February 2015 504. Richard H. McAdams, Vengeance, Complicity and Criminal Law in Othello, February 2015 505. Richard H. McAdams, Dhammika Dharmapala, and Nuno Garoupa, The Law of Police, February 2015